Utter Imbecility

"For although the knew God, they did not honor Him as God, but they became futile in their thinking..."

The recent Executive Order by President Joe Biden allowing self-identified transgender males to enter shower facilities of females of any age, including girls and children, represents the grossest possible example of stupidity and incompetence imaginable.  Can the Office of the President of the U.S. by its betrayal of defenseless females of any age, sink any lower?  I defy any critic of mine to discredit my charge by rebutting  the four points below by the rational means the Left claims to champion.  This posting is NOT an attack on people caught up in transgenderism (TG) per se, but rather on public officials who fail to consider policies which could protect both TG’s in their private challenges AND the safety of every person including females.  My Letter (below) with recent slight modifications still says it all.  

June 2, 2016

The Everett Herald

Everett, Washington 

Dear Editor,

The “Madman” in atheist Friedrich Nietzsche’s parable by the same name, warned his naïve audience that denial of God leads ALSO to the dehumanization of people.  St. Paul anticipated that very same inevitability in Romans 1:18-32.  The rejection of morality isn’t the only casualty that results from renouncing God.  Other societal foundations are likewise visibly crumbling. For example, assumptions behind the latest drive to remove protective boundaries pertaining to stripping potentially any female of their modesty, violates rationality itself with respect to justice, compassion, logic, and scientific authority.  Indeed today’s transgenderism agenda is built on a house of cards.

Any so-called “justice” which betrays the protection of girls and women by opening their showers to males cannot withstand the scrutiny of its own rhetoric.  Such a travesty of justice instead entails an utter perversion of this heavily-foundational Constitutional term.

What entitles these proponents to label conservatives “intolerant,” when it is the former who impose the humiliating costs of their decrees onto defenseless females?  While proponents of this agenda claim, and may even imagine, that they speak from “compassion,” it is not they who bear the consequences of their absurd decrees.

By what theory of intellectual formation are students required to address TGs with pronouns which in fact contradict one’s actual anatomy?  The classical goal of education as the pursuit of truth is thereby degenerating into brain-washing, the end of which is ultimately the death of rationality itself.

Finally, the fact that the criterion for determining a person’s gender has become a matter of “inner self-identity” irrespective of one’s genitalia and genes, indicates that “educators” will even deny scientific truth (such as they pretend to defend) insofar as it inhibits their agenda.

Sincerely,

Gary Jensen, Pastor

My Just Declined Letter to the Editor

 Addressed to The Daily American newspaper, Somerset Newspaper:

Dated January 22, 2021

Dear Editor,

     As a conservative I would never seek to censor Leftist’ views.  To the contrary, I judge instead that Leftist ideas are so intellectually vacuous; pitting them against conservatism is the best way to expose the absurdities of the former.  Secondly, I eagerly invite dissenters to scrutinize my views because my resolve to build them on honest research removes fear on my part of being discredited, even as it assists me in detecting potential errors of my own. 

     Propensity to censor others is a sign of a coward.  I judge that Leftist’ voices (be they high elected political officials, heads of social media, or sheeple in general), claiming to be guardians of truth, are all actually fearful of having their own moral nakedness exposed (see Hans Christ-ian Anderson’s, The Emperors’ New Clothes).  The new tenor of the Somerset, PA, Daily American reportage, illustrated in today’s headline, “Democracy has Prevailed,” highlights its confusion between a news column and an editorial denunciation.  Since Leftism both rejects the conception of morality which binds us to morality’s precepts, while it acknowledges that all people are limited in knowledge; what possible grounds entitle it to censor other people’s views?  Even if you are not conservative, by the Leftist’ ploy you too are nevertheless being knowledge-deprived since censorship draws even you into the reality of intellectual atrophy.  

How ironic it is that the teachings of Mao Tse Tung, who murdered 65 million Chinese intellectuals, are accessible on Google, while Google denies giving voice to US Constitutional-defender, Donald Trump (flawed the same as Biden is).  I would not silence Mao.  Why then the Leftist’ imposition of a double-standard onto Trump?  The answer is intellectual cowardice!    

What's Missing in Leftist Broadcast Pronouncements

         When I sought specifics the other day on the frequency of Donald Trump’s interviews by means of a Google search, it became immediately clear that I would find no such data.  The only articles were anti-Trump propaganda that lacked any pretense of factual reportage.  What I, for example, distinctly recalled from virtually every afternoon last Spring was his face-to-face updates over Covid19 before predictably hostile press groups.  Truly, I know for certain that my recollections about the predictability of his opposition-laden encounters have been accurate.  And I also applaud his ongoing presence there.

               Nonetheless, for the purpose of advancing the truth behind my title, it is not necessary to appeal to records of factual events Leftists are in the process of erasing anyway.  It is instead sufficient for me to raise two questions that include firstly: When Joe Biden’s statements on political matters are broadcast, is he ever scrutinized at that time by those holding other views?  This query should also be applied to his closest political associates.  And secondly, When news media celebrities make judgments about the conduct of Donald Trump, and also attack the character of his supporters, are they obliged to cite supporting evidence at a level that Leftist interviewers demand of Conservatives…ever?

               The answers to these questions are both clear and unassailable.  They are “No!” and “No!”  Track records need not even be sought for the reason that the reality is clear by the immediacy of each and every televised occasion, day after day.  No possible reason exists to excuse the double-standard that the Left brings into its coverage since its application firstly contradicts the Golden-Rule[1] that, even in its weaker sense, urges not doing to your neighbor what you would not wish done to you.  Secondly, unless the body of journalists lack critical-thinking skills, pressures surely exist that have the capacity to arouse tensions sourced from the first point; that is, unless a more primary force is ultimately in play.  I consider that my judgment about this is inescapable.  Leftists fear the weakness of their assertions will become utterly exposed.  Leftists have indeed always pushed their agenda onto its opponents mostly by intimidation and force for the reason that their alleged foundation is so empty…indeed even worse still because Leftism is contradicted by both its internal illogic, and its’ appalling list of atrocities from this last century.  While it is ashamedly true that universities have attracted a high number of compliant fans, their means of attracting them has been reached NOT by openly debating their “ideas” with other academicians, but rather through fanning the emotions of ill-informed idealistic undergrads.  Indeed, as lauded academic spokesperson Dr. John Ellis notes, the competition of the two university goals that are in continual tension: political activism on the one hand, and intellectual exchanges such as entail free competition between differing ideas on the other, simply cannot be reconciled.[2]  The Leftists’ propensity to gravitate to the first of the above alternatives, illustrates vividly that they no more than cowards!

               All the money and all the private power in the world as represented by Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, and Microsoft, etc., cannot hide the fact that Leftist politics are grounded on document-able lies.[3]  Censorship can never erase the truth, but only further exposes the absurdity of Leftist tenets.  At bottoms, we are witnessing the cowardice of people who fear getting caught with their pants down.

---

[1] https://iep.utm.edu/goldrule/

[2] John M. Ellis. The Breakdown of Higher Education. (Encounter, 2020), p. 39.

[3] See my multi-part blog at offensivechristianity.blogspot.com titled, “The Choice: Flawed Liberators OR Clueless Thugs,” 08/8-28/2020.     

We Didn’t Get to Our Moon with Leftist “Rationality”

“And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.” (Romans 1:28) 

        We didn’t land on two moon plus two other planets,[1] or study the outer planets on the way out into space by means of Leftist illogic.  Neither did the technology giants,[2] who determine to straight-jacket communication on social media according to what they deem are acceptable facts and opinions, develop their working technology by embracing the same irrationality they are imposing onto all of us. 

Those specific standards which had guarded societal rationality down through time are now being discarded at an accelerating rate.  Empirical[3] facts for example, aren’t only being dis-regarded at will; but are selectively being purged from public discourse, even as we citizens are being badgered into accepting as true their claims, despite being demonstrably false.  In addition the First Principle of rationality known as The Law of Non-Contradiction,[4] is effectively, selectively[5] being ignored at will.

In a Fact Check column that has just been introduced in our local Summerset, Pennsylvania newspaper, The Daily American, titled “Biden Has Condemned Violence Before,” Camilla Caldera cited several instances documenting his decrial of violence this past Summer.  The real problem with her assertion, however, is her failure to assign the blame for the nightly rioting on the streets to both Antifa and, to a lesser extent, Black Lives Matter, and secondly to the Democrat mayors and other municipal leaders.  Indeed Biden was quoted as saying, “I condemn violence of every kind by anyone on the left or the Right.  And I challenge Donald Trump to do the same.”[6]  This chronic failure of Biden to speak to the full truth leads logically to the reaction by the Left to denounce Donald Trump’s speech that preceded (only chronologically) the rioting that occurred at the US Capitol on January 6 (2021).  The Left thereby committed two gross rational errors that led them to frame those events as being directly incited by Donald Trump’s speech.  Firstly, they quite clearly refused to watch his speech with the care and open mind that any scientific investigation required.  And they took no responsibility to specify which specific aspects of his speech it was that incited the rampage.  Secondly, the Left refused to accept blame for the one hundred nights of rioting in regions that were under the jurisdictions of Democrat leadership.  This posture likewise violated the scientific principle of the necessity of assembling and assessing the entire body of the evidence.

Further examples of sub-rational conduct by people who ought to know better, can be found in my blog posting, “Leftism’s Claim to be Champions of Science is a Gigantic Fraud.”[7]  Similar themes  posted near it highlight why Leftist tactics are also cowardly.  At bottom, the denial of the strictures of logic and the disciplines of scientific methodology leads to incoherent nonsense.  Further, Romans 1:28 indicates where this nonsense first began.  This decline can never be creative in the positive and productive sense since it denies obligation to the firm realities of life that rationality and scientific research absolutely demand.

  

---

[1] https://astronomy.wikia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_that_have_visited_other_planets

[2] Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Possessing even massive amounts of money are no guarantee of avoiding lapsing into stupidity.

[3] Empirical facts entail physical entities which can potentially be experienced with our senses and examined by scientific instruments.

[4] It says, “Contradictory truths cannot both be true in the same way and at the same time.” Philosopher of science, Dr. J.P. Moreland says that science cannot effectively function in the absence of this law. Christianity and the Nature of Science: A Philosophical Investigation. (Baker, 1989), p. 118.

[5] I use the word, “selectively” twice for the reason that neither of these facets of irrationality be employed uniformly since, to the extent that they are denied, they contradict the unshakably firm aspects of reality.  For example, denying as real the image of a concrete barrier on the highway ahead will not diminish the damage it will cause by running into it.

[6] January 8, 2021, p. B5.

[7] www.offensivechristianity.blogspot.com, dated Nov. 20, 2020.      

Only One Possible Way to Establish Truth

  "The mouth of  the righteous is a fountain of life, but [that] of the wicked conceals violence."     (Proverbs 10:11)         

            The “Correspondence” view of truth that summarizes one of the driving principles of the scientific method, holds that “a theory is true if and only if what it says about the world does in fact accurately describe the world.”[1]  To give a few examples, the questions of whether or not the election results were legally compiled, or Donald Trump by his speech incited a riot, cannot be established by means of decree alone, whether by the US Congress or Supreme Court, or Mark Zuckerberg and his likes.  These matters can only be known by the process of due diligence that entails looking into the facts of the case with both an open mind and a sense of humility that each and every one of us may potentially change our own minds, or that the data would discredit naysayers in light of the truth. 

Failure to follow this method in these matters has resulted in committing two logical fallacies. They include firstly the formal fallacy, “Affirming the Consequent,” which means that “if the consequent is said to be true, the antecedent is said to be true, as a result.” [2]  I paraphrase that to mean, If the consequent is said to be true, then the prior assumption is also, absurdly, assumed to be true.  Secondly, “Hasty Generalization” is a fallacy that “draws a conclusion based on a small sample size rather than looking at statistics that are much more in line with the typical…situation.” [3]  In both cases, the conditions are much worse since, in neither has the evidence been validly investigated at all.   In regard to the former charge (above), there is weighty evidence to the contrary,[4] while with respect to the latter, the video of his speech utterly contradicts the charges.[5]  Consequently, it is fallacious to suggest that people are “un-American” solely for not trusting the results of the election or deeming that Donald Trump (morally-fallen just like all of the rest of us) is innocent of the above accusations.  There are no valid grounds for browbeating citizens who find empty assertions not-persuasive, while on the other hand, the exhibited naivety of clueless yet influential bullies throwing their weight around, deserves scorn.

---

[1] J.P. Moreland. Christianity and the Nature of Science. (Baker, 1989), p. 143** James Ladyman. Understanding the Philosophy of Science. (Routledge, 2002), pp. 157-9.

[2] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Affirming-the-Consequent

[3] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Hasty-Generalization

[4] If I had the authority I would “apologize” on the part of Google for the reason that when I probed the search engines for data, the only results offered were only articles taking the Leftist position.  Every other point of view, as far as I can see, has been censored.

[5] https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6?fbclid=IwAR2iyWagdrlJmj ZRdBiztvyvskuzTlOkN3fXFo7Fvm3GDYhDLDe0XyDpoR4 

Mark Zuckerberg has Neither Competence, Nor Standing, to Censor Anything, part 1

         Even the Supreme Court, as the highest body of judges in America, bind themselves to the objective standard of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Although Mark Zuckerberg (MZ) is not a legislator, his media empire, Facebook, carries influential weight that was sufficient to, along with Google, overthrow our recent Presidential election.  Consequently, MZ continues to be in complete violation (in spirit) of the First Amendment which states,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

On Thursday, January 7, the day after the Jan. 6 riots, Mark Zuckerberg tweeted with respect to President Donald Trump’s conduct, official statement, and his alleged motives:

The shocking events of the last 24 hours clearly demonstrate that President Donald Trump intends to use his remaining time in office to undermine the peaceful and lawful transition of power to his elected successor, Joe Biden…His decision to use his platform to condone rather than condemn the actions of his supporters at the Capitol building has rightly disturbed people in the US and around the world. We removed these statements yesterday because we judged that their effect -- and likely their intent -- would be to provoke further violence…Following the certification of the election results by Congress, the priority for the whole country must now be to ensure that the remaining 13 days and the days after inauguration pass peacefully and in accordance with established democratic norms…Over the last several years, we have allowed President Trump to use our platform consistent with our own rules, at times removing content or labeling his posts when they violate our policies. We did this because we believe that the public has a right to the broadest possible access to political speech, even controversial speech. But the current context is now fundamentally different, involving use of our platform to incite violent insurrection against a democratically elected government…We believe the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great. Therefore, we are extending the block we have placed on his Facebook and Instagram accounts indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete.[1]

It is firstly vital to highlight several highly questionable aspects of his tweet.  Since I have listened entirely to Trump’s speech that preceded the riot, I am qualified to conclude:

·                  Zuckerberg’s assertion that Trump purposes “To undermine the peaceful and lawful transition of power to his elected successor…” is false.  His purpose was instead to investigate substantiated allegations that the vote itself was fraudulent.  Yet on Jan. 7 at 7:10 pm, in light of the Senatorial vote the night before, Trump promised a peaceful transition to his successor, Joe Biden’s Presidency.[2]

·                  Zuckerberg’s assertion that Trump’s “intent” was “to provoke further violence,” is false.  To the contrary, Trump several times in his speech he said they would be walking “to the Capitol peacefully.”  Indeed Trump also explicitly decried the conduct of the rioters and assured the audience that the violent ones were not part of his following.[3]  Indeed, it is striking that the damaging rioting was entirely inconsistent with the conduct of attendees to every other rally.

·                  For these reasons it is reckless for MZ to assume Trump’s goal is to “invite violent insurrection.”

To be continued...

---

[1] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/facebook-blocks-trump-indefinitely-capitol-riot-response

[2] https://www.livemint.com/news/world/trump-promises-smooth-transition-of-the-new-govt-condemns-capitol-attack-11610066149375.html

[3] Ibid.

Humanistic “Ethics” Can Never Create a Free and Just Society, part 1

“The least [initial] deviation from truth is multiplied later a thousandfold.” (Aristotle, On the Heavens) 

“Humanism” and its pragmatic-synonym, “secularism,”[1] make similar bold social claims:

“Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.”[2]

While this treatise on “ethical” potential raises several questions, the one aspect of ethics I choose to contest is the humanist claim that we have an autonomous[3] capacity to “lead ethical lives.”  And my challenge is further heightened because the plan they envision entails not merely individualistic betterment; but overhauling a national order!  Any claim that that goal can improve America solely by repudiating the “sins” of our Founders is utterly naïve.[4]  The fact that humanistic college academicians[5] give a “pass” to the conduct of 20^th Century-Marxists[6] while vilifying Washington and Lincoln is, on its face, absurd.  It is on the one hand true that secularism has tolerably coexisted alongside our republican democratic social order for a century.  Nevertheless, in terms of social considerations, their “success” has occurred not as if they collaborated in a positive way, but because of their parasitic reliance on the social resources, drawn from a parent society, that are rooted in the Bible.[7]   

My point is NOT to begrudge their free ride, but rather to highlight the reality that the promises cited in our Declaration of Independence have their source NOT in humanistic ideology, but in the principles that flow from a Christian worldview.  Though secularists will undoubtedly mock this assertion by charging “those Christian sinners” (meaning “us”)… with “hypocrisy,” the points they miss include (1) the universality of sin in that everybody without exception breaks the golden rule, (2) in an absence of a universal moral code, societies will naturally degenerate into tyrannical-chaos,[8] and (3) in a spirit of defiance of authority, the expected result can only be that law-breakers will loot the defenseless.  In addition to the Covid19 onslaught, our society has recently suffered from devastating rioting over a hundred days, vis-a-vis the gross neglect by Leftist authorities to protect their citizens.  According to Rom. 1:18f., such misery naturally results from their defiant denial of the moral law of God.[9]  

This entire article can be accessed at my website: www.christianityontheoffense.com/articles  

---

[1] https://www.secularism.org.uk/what-is-secularism.html

[2] The Humanist Manifesto III, 2003 (boldface mine). https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/manifesto3/.  Boldface mine.  **

[3] The term “autonomous” affectively means self-powered (pun intended). Think “automobile.” Consider also the word, “innate.”

[4] John. M. Ellis. The Breakdown of Higher Education. (Encounter, 2020), p. 113

[5]  Ibid.

[6] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/11/07/lessons-from-a-century-of-communism/

[7] “That the founders of [our nation] believed in a religious basis for our society can be illustrated abundantly from their speeches and writings.” Russell Kirk. The Roots of American Order. (Regnery Gateway, 1991), p. 433.

[8] Think of a society where each driver is permitted individually to abide by their own laws.

[9] St. Paul writes, “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap” (Galatians 5:7).

[10] Robert Conquest. “Reflections on a Ravaged Century.” https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/asreview.htm

[11] BIOLA University Prof., Clay Jones concludes from extensive study that they were mostly normal people shielded from threat of punishment.